Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:17:53 +0000 | From | Mark Rutland <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] thermal: hisilicon: add new hisilicon thermal sensor driver |
| |
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 07:57:27AM +0000, kongxinwei wrote: > This patch adds the support for hisilicon thermal sensor, within > hisilicon SoC. there will register sensors for thermal framework > and use device tree to bind cooling device. > > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: kongxinwei <kong.kongxinwei@hisilicon.com> > --- > drivers/thermal/Kconfig | 8 + > drivers/thermal/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c | 531 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 540 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c
[...]
> + ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "hisilicon,tsensor-lag-value", > + &sensor->lag);
This wasn't in the binding.
[...]
> + ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "hisilicon,tsensor-thres-temp", > + &sensor->thres_temp); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get thres value %d: %d\n", > + index, ret); > + return ret; > + } > + > + ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "hisilicon,tsensor-reset-temp", > + &sensor->reset_temp); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get reset value %d: %d\n", > + index, ret); > + return ret; > + }
I see now that these properties result in the HW being programmed. You should figure out how to reconcile these with thermal-zone trip points rather than having parallel properties.
> + > + if (of_property_read_bool(np, "hisilicon,tsensor-bind-irq")) { > + > + if (data->irq_bind_sensor != -1) > + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "irq has bound to index %d\n", > + data->irq_bind_sensor); > + > + /* bind irq to this sensor */ > + data->irq_bind_sensor = index; > + }
I don't see why this should be specified in the DT. Why do you believe it should?
[...]
> +static int hisi_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > +{ > + struct hisi_thermal_data *data; > + struct resource *res; > + int i; > + int ret; > + > + if (!cpufreq_get_current_driver()) { > + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "no cpufreq driver!"); > + return -EPROBE_DEFER; > + }
Surely we care about not burning out the board even if we don't have cpufreq?
Is there any ordering guarantee between the probing of this driver and cpufreq?
[...]
> + data->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
You gave this clock a name in the binding. Use it or drop it.
Mark.
| |